Search results

the scientist referenced in this thread's paper/study most categorically believes in AGW. How does your hypocritical denier self positioning allow you to puff-up over his (single) paper findings on this singular focused aspect... but completely otherwise dismiss his more broadly held positions...

"wierdo"??? Why must you resort to this juvenile tactic? As well, do you believe this is the type of member labeling you believe the board moderator's are looking for... are encouraging? Say yes! :mrgreen: you speak of facts! Are you identifying this single paper's findings as "facts"...

"religious fanatic"??? Is this the type of summary assessment you attach to anyone you disagree with? please speak to "the fallacies" being pointed out? Can you actually string something together beyond your usual/typical drive-by insults?

village idiot? Are you sure this is the type of response/labeling that this board's moderator's are looking for - say yes! :mrgreen: please speak to the "scare mongering" you're interpreting from my post?

yes, yes... you are quite proud of your C&P wizardry! :mrgreen: But wait, Locutus, I'm completely taken back that your linked reference to the "Daily Howler" would take such an emphasis (/snarc) of course, this is just more of the denier predilection toward the single scientist/single study...

as I said:the issue the smallish number of models have is that the duration of time step for calculated insolation results in mean insolation varying with longitude. Again, this issue doesn't exist within the majority of models, particularly the more profiled and utilized models.... and...

your posts are unrelated to the thread topic... why do you continue so? Please channel your apparent energies into attempting to actually add something of related subject matter substance/value to this thread - thanks in advance. Until you do so, other than commenting on your purposeful...

why do you continue to follow-up real subject related posts with your simple one-liner bullshyte comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic... that provide no value to the thread... that are simply intended to disrupt? Oh, that's right... you're member petros!!!

why do you continue to follow-up real subject related posts with your simple one-liner bullshyte comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic... that provide no value to the thread... that are simply intended to disrupt? Oh, that's right... you're member petros!!!

your "comment": as I said:the issue the smallish number of models have is that the duration of time step for calculated insolation results in mean insolation varying with longitude. Again, this issue doesn't exist within the majority of models, particularly the more profiled and...

why are you running away from the OP subject at hand... your ready-reach strawman and denier talking points are well worn!

sorry to have burst the denier bubble provided in the OP link to the infamous denier blog WTFIUWT! You're just another denier in the mix who can't manage to actually speak to the subject at hand... or attempt to counter anything I've said. Geezaz, the way it was presented on the denier blog it...

skookie, taxi, gerryh, DuhSleeper... why won't any of you CC Deniers comment on the OP subject itself or take on my post? You've sure had a number of unrelated posts in this thread otherwise... here let me help ya further: the issue the smallish number of models have is that the duration of...

ya ya, just another taxi drive-by. Clearly, your "runaway, runaway" routine can be easily drawn out by simply challenging you to support your statements/claims! Runaway, runaway taxi!

a most focused scientific analysis has been underway by many scientists for a couple of years now to attempt to understand just what is causing the jet-stream to dip so far south and to remain relatively 'static' for the long-periods of time being observed. Locutus, see Arctic/Polar...

an 'informal' deadline... how did your denier blog reference miss that, hey Locutus. As it stands, countries that have submitted to the "informal" deadline account for a 3rd of all emissions... including the U.S. and the 28 countries of the EU. Of course, as was highlighted at the time of the...

again: "how is it you can't bring yourself to post these gems of yours when the original posts are made... posts that presume to call into question Arctic sea-ice melting?" how is it you only manage to post your bullshyte when counters to the original posts are made?

you going somewhere? :mrgreen: how is it you can't bring yourself to post these gems of yours when the original posts are made... posts that presume to call into question Arctic sea-ice melting?

oh my! Hey CC deniers... when the 2015 Arctic "end of the freezing season" sea-ice maximum extent gets called this early... just where will 2015 melting end up relative to the 2012 reference point for all-time melting?

no - climate doesn't just magically/mystically change "on its own"! Many factors can cause changes in Earth’s energy balance... in turn causing the Earth's climate to change... many factors, anthropogenic or natural, like greenhouse effect changes, sun energy variations reaching Earth, changes...